MINUTES
Minutes of the meeting held on February 27, 2006 were approved as edited on motion by Bob
Mercado seconded by Gerry Marcus. All
voted in favor (Ms. DeSouza-Ward arrived after the vote was taken.)
BOARD OF APPEALS
CASES
Case 06-01, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LCC, 585
Lebanon Street
John Sadowski requested
that this case be taken off of the assent calendar for discussion. Petitioner, Josh Delamen with Cingular was present to represent the
application. Mr. Delamen explained that
due to technological advances they were planning to reduce the number of
antennae on the hospital building from nine to six. A cabinet would be added inside the building
to enable this. Mr. Sadowski motioned to
send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals referring to the representation provided to
the Planning Board that the number of antennae
would be decreased. Seconded by Mr.
Connolly. All in favor. None opposed.
On a separate note, Mr. Cassavoy asked M. Delamen to look
into the cell tower installation at Mt.
Hood. It is in poor condition and needs
maintenance. Mr. Delaman agreed to look
into this.
Case 06-02, McDermott, Beech
Avenue
Mike McDermott and
Engineer Tony Salamanca spoke on behalf of the Application. Petitioner has applied to the ZBA for relief
for frontage and lot area for a new single family home on a paper street at the
end of Beech Avenue. The lot is proposed to be accessed from the
east via Mt. Hood Terrace. The road to access the lot is proposed to be
18 feet wide with a three foot gravel shoulder on either side; three catch basins
at the bottom of the road with natural drainage. Mr. Salamanca represented that he has had
multiple meetings with the Building Commissioner and City Engineer and that
they are satisfied with the plans.
Case 06-03, LaVoie, 10
Vine Street
Applicant Roger Lavoie and Attorney Judy Clark were
present. Petitioner requires zoning
relief to convert existing single family residence to a two family
residence. The use is permitted and
consistent with neighboring properties.
Dimensional relief required is relatively minor. Attorney Clark
distributed an assessors map showing the neighboring properties with similar
non conformances. Attorney Clark
explained recent history in which the ZBA revoked the building permit which was
granted by the former Building Commissioner for a three car garage. Attorney Clark
explained that after that decision the Petitioners never completed the addition
as a garage but changed the building permit to make the addition residential
space. It was made into a family room
with patio doors and patio. Now the
Petitioners wish to convert that space to a separate living space to
accommodate a change in the Petitioners/owners personal relationship. Petitioners (owners) represent that they
intend to occupy both units if they are successful in obtaining the relief
required to convert to a two family.
There was some discussion and concern about the tandem parking
arrangement but eventual agreement that the arrangement is not prohibited for a
two family residence in the zoning ordinance.
After some discussion the Board agreed to send a standard letter
deferring to the ZBA with input from abutters.
Motion made by Mr. Connolly.
Seconded by Ms. DeSouza-Ward. All
in favor. None opposed.
OTHER
Station Crossing Development
Attorney Tom Bennett and David Giangrande from DCI Engineers
present. Attorney Bennett explained
that he was representing Nabil Boghos who could not attend.
Rich Connolly recused himself from this discussion.
Two outstanding issues discussed: 1) concern about slope of driveways to below
ground parking lot and 2) location of utility lines on Willow
Street (overhead as currently proposed onsite
versus below ground as permitted by Special Permit decision).
Mr. Giangrande took up the issue
of the driveway slope. His firm was the original design engineering firm for
the project. He described the memo
issued in advance of the meeting in which he field verified the slopes. South side slope (West
Foster street) is 2% steeper than shown on the
permitted plans. North side slope is 2%
flatter. Difference on the south side
apparently due to a trench drain, according to Mr. Giangrande. Board members expressed concern about
pedestrian safety at the south exit. At 16.5% grade this is a steep slope onto
an area of heavy pedestrian traffic with no real transition area. The 2% difference is significant enough to
cause concern. Mr. Giangrande suggested
that a site line test could be performed to ensure adequate site distance and
noted that there are ways to mitigate site line limitations (such as with
signage and horns which alert pedestrians to approaching vehicles). Board members preferred to explore whether
the engineers could restore the slope to the 14.5% slope approved during
permitting. Mr. Giangrande represented
that he was confident he could do this by raising the trench drain by 4”. If he is unsuccessful and cannot certify that
the final slope of the south side driveway is 14.5%, he agreed to bring the
issue back to the Board.
Regarding the utility lines, Mr. Cassavoy described the
problem with the overhead utility wires and laid out the options for addressing
the issue. Attorney Bennett mentioned
that Nabil Boghos would consider posting a bond while the Board pursued the
options for bringing the wires below ground.
This would allow the building to be powered up in the meantime which is
necessary for construction to proceed.
Ms DeSouza-Ward expressed concern about the Board’s ability to do this
and suggested that the City solicitor should be contacted.
There then ensued discussion among members as to whether the
change in utilities from below ground to overhead constitutes a substantial
change which warrants a public hearing.
Ms. Gaffey weighed in with her view that the issue might be considered
in terms of impacts and importance to the public as discussed during the Special
Permit application. The issue of utility
wire placement was not discussed in any significant way and did not appear to concern
the abutters and community at large as did traffic concerns. The driveway slope issue could be viewed as a
more significant concern and one with public safety implications. Mr. Sadowski made a motion that the fact that
the utility wires along Willow Street
are overhead is not substantial enough to warrant a new public hearing. Ms. DeSouza-Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Mercado, Mr. Bubier and Mr. Cassavoy
disagreed and the motion failed. Ms.
Gaffey suggested that the Board delay taking further action to allow for the
opportunity to check with the City Solicitor on the question of the bond. Board members agreed to continue the
discussion at the next meeting on March 27th. Ms. Gaffey will contact the City Solicitor in
advance on that meeting.
406 Main Street
Attorney Bob Bell and the property owner returned to discuss
this project on a preliminary basis again with the Planning
Board.
Attorney Bell
reported that the adjacent lot (the Sparks
building) has sold but there is still uncertainty as to how that site will be
redeveloped. The proposal for 406
Main Street assumes that the Sparks
building will not change and that the southern elevation will continue to be
exposed. The proponent has therefore
spent some time thinking about that elevation from a design standpoint.
When they last met with the Board in October the proposal
was for 8 residential units in addition to the salon space on the first
floor. This has been scaled back to six
units plus the salon. The revised plan
shows six parking spaces which are shown side by side backing onto Faulkner
Place (a private way) under the building (the
second and third stories will be cantilevered over the ground level parking.)
Mr. Bell represented that the technical issues that
previously concerned the Building Commissioner have gone away. The windows on the south elevation will be
recessed. There is still an
encroachment issue which will need to be addressed with the new owners of the “Sparks”
property.
There was a general discussion among Board members regarding
the proposal. Members were told that a
structural engineer has not yet been retained.
Members discussed desire for sturdy building materials such as
hardiplank siding and PVC trim.
Parking was noted as a concern. Attorney Bell
explained that the proponent would pursue a special exception for parking with
the ZBA. They will argue that no
properties in the downtown business district meet the parking requirement and
they should not be subject to a literal interpretation of the parking
requirement due to the downtown location and proximity to transit. The issue of handicap parking was
raised. Also raised was the question
whether an elevator is required. Need to
check with the Building Commissioner regarding access issues.
There was concern about the interior layout of the
residential units and a sentiment that the plans seemed very preliminary.
Annual Elections
Mr. Cassavoy noted that this was the annual meeting of the
Board and as such members were charged with appointing officers. Ms. Marcus nominated Mr. Cassavoy as
chair. This was seconded by Mr. Connolly. All in favor.
None opposed. Mr. Cassavoy nominated
to keep Mr. Connolly as Vice Chair.
Seconded by Mr. Mercado. All in
favor. None opposed. Ms. Marcus nominated to keep Ms. DeSouza Ward
as Clerk. Seconded by Mr. Bubier. All in favor.
None opposed.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15PM.